Yes and no. It depends on the meaning of centrist, and what policies are taken.
Two things are needed to win.
1. Gain part of the middle. No argument there.
2. This part is forgotted...NEVER FORGET WHAT BROUGHT YOU THERE. If you abandon your base, you are done.
These states decide the election. These are the swing states.
New Hampshire, Penn, West VA , North Carolina(Edwards), Florida, Louisiana, Arkansas, Tennesee, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, Missouri(As Missouri goes, so does the country), Colorado, Nevada, Arizona, and New Mexico.
The policies that move to the middle must be aimed at THOSE states. Reagan was a master. He had BLUE COLLAR appeal. He wasn't viewed like some Country Clubber. Bush needs to gain some Blue Collar appeal, and he is doing that so far. He CAN'T throw it away or his base with some stupid move like CFR, gun bans(so far so good), amnesty(that won't play well AT ALL, and I'm fairly pro-immigration), 5 billion in foreign aid, and stuff like that.
The Steel tariffs on the other hand is an EXCELLENT move. He didn't forget West VA, which went for him. That plays well in NE Ohio, parts of Penn, and Michigan as well.
BLUE COLLAR CONSERVATIVES win elections...and they are fickle voters.
The question being...who was it, exactly, that introduced Dubya and "brung" him in the first place?
Those are the ones he'll dance with.
That will reveal a lot.
I don't know how many times I've said this very thing. Increasing your appeal to moderates is nice, but not if it causes you to lose your conservative base. The base consists of "broken glass" voters; the ones who'd crawl through broken glass if they had to in order to vote. Moderates do not show anywhere near that level of interest in voting. They'll go out and vote if it isn't too inconvenient. So appealling to a particular moderate voter might result in a vote. But, if they have to stop and pick up the kids from soccer practice that day, or buy groceries, or they planned to go to a movie, or if Survivor or Friends is on that night... Any distraction has a very good chance of keeping them away from the voting booth. Appeal to a conservative, however, and he will vote; even if he has to crawl through broken glass to do it. But the base won't show this dedication to a wishy-washy RINO. They'll stay home if the "conservative" in the race is too interested in appeasing moderates.
But that's the bad news. Here's the really bad news: The liberal counterparts to the broken glass conservatives aren't nearly as picky. They will accept a liberal candidate who is straying off of the reservation to pick up moderates. Why? Because they are in a more advantageous political position than we are. They want an increase in the size and power of government. They have two generations of inertia behind them pushing towards that goal. We are pushing against that inertia. Thus a moderate candidate is still pushing the right way in their view. A moderate adds to that inertia, albeit not as forcefully as they'd like. To us, the moderate is also seen as adding to that inertia, but in the wrong way. Pushing more slowly towards a totalitarian state is still pushing towards a totalitarian state! To a conservative, this is a bad thing, but to a liberal, it's acceptable. Thus Democrats can usually get away with upsetting their base; they will vote for them anyway. Republicans do not have this luxury. They must woo moderates, but in a way that does not offend the base. This is a much harder task. And given that the payoff is a "maybe" vote, it's much more important to keep the base happy and engaged. The good news here is that the GOP's conservative base is larger than the liberal base. Even though the Democrats have an edge in registrations, a lower percentage are "broken glass" liberals.